Democratic (Party) Direction

well yes, but what it really means is i think you can go have your bogus white house talking points debunked on about 75,000 liberal blogs, and it would be pointless to regurgitate the argument here. or, conversely, you can go have them applauded on about 75,000 rightwing blogs.

1) "After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of this?"

2) "After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying this was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of this?"

To question #1, 46% approve and 50% disapprove. To question #2, 53% approve and 46% disapprove. So it sounds like as long as Bush continues to harp on the terrorism angle, public opinion is likely to remain on his side - which makes impeachment seem rather unlikely.

Yes, Democrats should make an issue, but they MUST MUST MUST harp on the potential for ABUSE and not just the illegality.

Dems have to make an issue out of it in order to be a credible opposition party (and besides, it's the right thing to do), but also should not expect it to be an election-winning issue and should in no way make it the focus of any campaign.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134929/

Liberals are not nearly so rare and so culturally isolated as the official map would suggest. This is little comfort to Democrats when it comes to the math of winning elections. But it does suggest that endless self-flagellation about their values and beliefs may not be the best strategy for turning things around.

This is not an argument for complacency. Obviously the party that has lost the White House, both houses of Congress, and now the courts needs some new ideas and new energy. But it seems undeniably true to me — though many deny it — that the Republicans simply play the game better. You're not supposed to say that. At Pundit School they teach you: Always go for the deeper explanation, not the shallower one. Never suggest that people (let alone "the" people) can be duped.

First, it failed the party. People are more reluctant to identify themselves as liberals or propgressives than they wre in 1988 and one of the reasons is that people like Al From and his boys helped the Republicans degrade the label to such an extent that people don't want to be associated with it. It is one thing to criticize your brothers; it's another to sully the family name. They continue to do this by talking about purging Michael Moore and Move-On and generally showing such a lack of respect for the grassroots that you wonder why they don't just call us all filthy rabble and tell us to eat cake. The lesson here is to never employ GOP rhetoric about the Democratic Party, ever. This is one thing that simply has got to stop.

I agree with don't-distance-yourself-from-the-party. But look at his examples - neither Moore nor MoveOn is actually part of the party. I'm ok with distancing yourself from allies who you think don't understand the playbook and insist on running the wrong plays. That's exactly what the left blogosphere does to Lieberman, et al all the time, and it's hypocritical to suggest otherwise. And maybe we even benefit from this division, the way the GOP does from its Wall Street and fundy division at the lower levels. But at some point, to come up with a national message, one side is probably going to have to give on which playbook is right, because unity on the wrong strategy may be preferable to division - Kerry and Gore were arguably easy to paint as wafflers because they spent a lot of time trying to avoid picking sides, Hillary will probably be easy to paint in the same light because she appears to be trying to pick both sides simultaneously, and Warner or some similarly fresh equivalent is arguably the best choice in 08 because they can be another Clintonian rorschach test. But what I've been trying to do on this thread, and I think a lot of people in the party are trying to do, is to come up with a third way that unites the two playbooks.

As to the DLC boogeyman, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Al From is some evil dude, but all I really see in support of that contention is the certainty of the speaker, not much substantive evidence.

But most of the people they engage are. Exactly what were the fruits of Clinton's "fourth way" (first I've heard of it)?

Facts alone, note Aubrun and Grady, aren’t enough to educate people; instead, facts must be carefully packaged (or “framed”) in the context of narratives or explanations if they’re to enhance knowledge. Consider the technically complex issue of climate change, where attacks on science have been rampant and the public has been deeply confused. Grady and Aubrun have found that as an explanation, the “greenhouse effect” simply confuses people. Few Americans have any firsthand experience of greenhouses, and they don’t grasp the proposed analogy between carbon dioxide (a gas) and glass walls. So instead, Grady and Aubrun suggest talking about a “carbon dioxide blanket” encircling the earth—an explanation that instantly helps people understand why a heating effect is taking place. Sure, it’s a metaphor and shouldn’t be taken literally. But then, so was the concept of an ozone “hole”—a phrasing that instantly allowed the public to understand the issue of ozone depletion and that helped to galvanize political action.

The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people -- and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

Once you grasp this fact, you're a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.

Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities

I haven't read the article yet, but I think it could be a Frankie Goes to Hollywood 12" cover for the naughties.

A slamdunk example of cronyism and mismanagement, and what does the Democratic spokesman do? He criticizes the Republicans for "standing by their man" - apparently totally oblivious to the fact that phrasing it that way makes the Republicans look solid and upstanding and reliable, as "standing by your man" is something most Americans would consider a virtue. Totally inept handling of the media...

Paul Hackett just quit the Senate race in Ohio due to reported pressure from Harry Reid & Chuck Schumer to switch to the House race against Jean Schmidt. Somebody needs to dump the bullshit consultants that the DNC listens to:

Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said that part of what made Democratic leaders nervous about Mr. Hackett was what had also made him so popular with voters.

"Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon to the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician," Ms. Duffy said. "On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown."

Mr. Hackett was widely criticized last year for using indecent language to describe President Bush. Last month, state Republicans attacked Mr. Hackett for saying their party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said "aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden."

Though Republicans called for an apology, Mr. Hackett repeated the mantra of his early campaign: "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."

who are these consultants?

only if it gives in to the desires of some that it become the party of alienation

Won any elections lately? Had any legislative successes lately?

no it isn't. they're both running against an incumbent with 40% approval ratings, the lowest in the Senate. while theoretically a grapefruit could win, the guy who's more "electable" is the guy with built-in name recognition who doesn't get on the news only because he uses profanity or physically threatens someone who disrupts one of his events. i don't want to let the GOP parlay stuff like that into a victory (wouldn't be extraordinarily hard - go for the McCain "he's nuts" route, or the family values one) when the election is a gimme for our side as a referendum on the incumbent.

hahahahahaha o rly?

oh, this guy. there's been plenty about him floating around online lately. It didn't help that he had the Dubya embrace at the latest SOTU.

Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations' commanders? (yes, no, undecided)

Do you support President Bush's initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need? (yes, no, undecided)